Each days paper, it seems, brings more
tidings of unrestrained selfishness and self-dealing and rafts of
powerful people saying its good for us to be robbed if only
we truly understood the system. The problem is, were getting
to understand it all too well ... When I see what the top dogs at
all too many corporations are now doing that trust (built up by the
business community in earlier years) I feel queasy. Outrageous - yes,
obscene - pay. Greedy backdating of stock options, which in my opinion
is straight-up theft. Managers buying assets from their trustors,
the stockholders, at pennies on the dollar, then forestalling competing
bids with lockups and insane breakup fees. These misdeeds and many,
many more are hammer blows at the granite foundation of trust we built
in the 1940s and 50s. How long democratic capitalism can survive
these blows before it gives in and gives birth to revolution or to
an out-and-out aristocracy, I am not sure. Empires came and go. Economic
systems come and go. There is no heavenly guarantee that capitalism
will last forever as we know it.

Ben Stein, The
Hard Rain thats Falling on Capitalism, New York Times,
January 29, 2007. Ben Stein, a humorist and cable-television personality,
is son of the Chairman of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors
in the Nixon administration.

In 2005 the US had a current account deficit
in excess of $800 billion. That means Americans consumed $800 billion
more goods and services than they produced. A significant percentage
of this figure is offshore production by US companies for American
markets. The US current account deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic
Product is unprecedented ... The US pays its current account deficit
by giving up ownership of its existing assets or wealth. Foreigners
don't simply hold the $800 billion in cash. They use it to acquire
US equities, real estate, bonds, and entire companies ... The federal
budget is also in the red to the tune of about $400 billion .. . American
consumers are heavily indebted. The growth of consumer debt is what
has been fueling the economy. Social Security and Medicare are in
financial trouble, as are many company pension plans ...

The average Chinese wage is $0.57 per hour,
a mere 3% of the average US manufacturing worker's wage. With first
world technology, capital, and business know how crowding into China,
virtually free Chinese labor is as productive as US labor. This should
make it obvious to anyone who claims to be an economist that offshore
production of goods and services is an example of capital seeking
absolute advantage in lowest factor cost, not a case of free trade
based on comparative advantage. American economists have failed their
country as badly as have the Republican and Democratic parties. The
sad fact is that there is no leader in sight capable of reversing
the rapid decline of the United States of America."

(Note: When the U.S. trade deficit rose another
6.5% in 2006 to reach its fifth straight annual record, the Bush administration
dismissed this as a product of U.S. economic growth while Democratic
leaders blamed it on unfair currency practices by the Chinese and
Japanese.)

Paul Craig Roberts
was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration
and was once Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The above quotations from persons with impeccable
conservative credentials and connections to the business community of
previous years ought to be a warning that U.S. capitalism is in trouble.
The political and business system which Americans believe to be superior
to any other in the world could undergo profound change and even cease
to exist.

Bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld

Capitalism can only be destroyed from inside, by
the capitalists themselves and by their political supporters. To a certain
extent, this would be the result of a natural process in history by
which human institutions over time inevitably decay and are replaced
by something else. But we see visible signs of decay today in the final
two years of the presidential administration of George W. Bush.

Mr. Bush, who has an MBA in business from Harvard,
first went into the oil business and lost lots of money. He then became
part owner and front man for the Texas Rangers, a professional baseball
team. His main task was a political one: to convince the Texas legislature
to build a new stadium for the team. After that job was successfully
completed, Bush sold his interest in the team for a huge profit. His
increased wealth came on the backs of taxpayers in Texas who financed
the stadium and made the team which would use it much more valuable.

Dick Cheney, Bushs Vice President, was Chief
Executive Officer of the Halliburton Corporation prior to joining the
administration. When the United States invaded Iraq and its infrastructure
was destroyed, Halliburton received sole-source contracts to perform
various services for the U.S. military and to help rebuild Iraqs
infrastructure. Revenue from Iraqs oil production would finance
part of this, and the U.S. taxpayer the rest. And so, the idea was that
contractors working for Mr. Cheneys former business would be earning
large sums of money, and the company itself would earn large profits,
while the Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers were forced to serve
in dangerous combat positions at low rates of pay. In effect, it was
slave labor. Officially volunteers, these nonprofessional
soldiers were given mandatory tours of duty in Iraq, extended again
and again, while their families at home were financially hard pressed.

Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense in the Bush
administration, is a career politician who later became chief executive
officer at G.D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical company later sold
to Monsanto, by doing what Wall Street likes best. He increased the
firms profitability by laying off employees. The remaining employees
would be forced to work harder and smarter, it was supposed. Carrying
that philosophy into his job at the Defense Department, Mr. Rumsfeld
believed that the war in Iraq could be won with far fewer troops than
what conventional wisdom would suggest. We would use our superior technology,
combined with shock and awe tactics, to achieve a military
advantage and then be greeted as liberators. Rumsfelds own superior
insights and decisive leadership, honed through his business experience,
would bring a glorious victory.

The Rumsfeld approach did bring Iraqs quick
conquest, however the lack of sufficient military manpower failed to
keep the peace. In the absence of enough troops to police the conquered
nation, Iraqi society became plagued by looting, shootings, mine explosions,
and sectarian violence, if not civil war. Secretary Rumsfelds
egotistical, arrogant insistence of conquering and holding Iraq on the
cheap (in terms of human casualties)was a direct cause of this catastrophe.
But in the end it wound up costing the nation and the world much more
than was initially expected. Rumsfeld looked more like Robert McNamara,
another business genius who fumbled in his management of the Vietnam
war, than someone who would be attractive to historians.

So we see, in all three cases, that capitalism was
combined with government power to maximize profits and perpetuate power.
None of these men became rich by competing successfully in a free-market
economy. George W. Bush used his fathers reputation and connections
(and that Harvard MBA) to gain executive positions with the Texas oil
company and professional baseball team. Cheney and Rumsfeld became chief
executive officers of large corporations on the strength of their political
credentials - former members of Congress, cabinet officers, and presidential
chiefs of staff. In their business capacity, they then used government
to build taxpayer-financed stadiums or provide lucrative contracts in
the absence of competitive bidding.

Thus the nations top three political leaders
themselves exemplify capitalism in its decadent phase. Their activities
represent the squandering or appropriating of wealth accumulated by
others to achieve personal gain. As managerial leaders, they betray
the trust of many who depend on them. Their policies put private interests
ahead of the general interest of the organizations which they have been
entrusted to lead. This is, at best, soft-core corruption. Such activities
characterize societies or sectors of enterprise in decline.

Financial
Irresponsibility of this Government and Signs of Institutional Decay

The Bush administration
inherited a budget surplus and created budget deficits of unprecedented
size in the ensuing years. While it is true that a recession and the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, contributed to the deficits,
President Bush himself failed to exercise leadership in this area. He
failed to veto a single spending bill even while the Republican Congress
indulged itself freely in pork-barrel legislation. Much additional money
was thrown at homeland security and was wastefully spent. A new prescription-drug
benefit was created under Social Security which was neither affordable
nor needed. Widely regarded as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry,
the signed legislation would not allow the federal government to negotiate
with drug companies for lower prices. Finally, the U.S. Government invaded
Iraq and assumed responsibility for rebuilding the country after it
was destroyed. This misadventure could add another trillion dollars
to the national debt.

Meanwhile, the U.S. trade deficit soared
to record levels. Part of this deficit was due to oil imports, reflecting
the federal governments chronic failure to control gas-guzzling
cars, trucks, and SUVs. A larger part reflects the escape of manufacturing
to low-wage countries such as China. Administration spokesmen have suggested
that this is actually a healthy adjustment in the world economy, allowing
us to specialize in high-end productive functions handled by our more
educated and intelligent work force. It is foolish, however, to suppose
that China does not also have an educated and work force or will respect
our intellectual-property rights any more than Americans respected such
rights of Europeans in the 19th century. Yet, in the face of mounting
trade deficits, President Bush proposes even more free-trade agreements.
It is a head-in-the-sand posture characteristic of declining national
power.

If capitalism is to continue on a growth
track, it needs to find new products and industries that will contribute
to human comfort and well-being. Simply to put more drug addicts into
expensive prisons or build new gambling casinos does not fit that description.
The fast-growing medical industry seems more committed to medicating
patients and earning big profits than promoting personal health. Touting
an ownership society, President Bush encouraged more people
to buy their own homes instead of renting. Unless these new home buyers
had reliable incomes to support the mortgage payments, his rhetoric
merely encouraged bankers and mortgage brokers to push houses at inflated
prices on unqualified buyers who would soon be in default. Low-interest
rates and inflated housing prices provided the means of financing consumer
purchases through home-equity loans rather than current income. Meanwhile
the cost of higher education was going through the roof even as young
people eagerly purchased this expensive service out of fear than they
would otherwise be unemployable in the increasingly competitive global
economy.

None of these growth industries contribute
to the general well-being of society. Those which do - agriculture,
manufacturing, etc. - are in a chronic state of decline. Yet, apologists
for capitalism argue that Americans are becoming more prosperous and,
even if we arent, are still much better off than people in other
parts of the world. The socialist alternative has been discredited.
Human thought and practice has yet failed to come up with a better economic
or political system.

While this argument may be partly true,
it fails to recognize that the trends are unfavorable. It fails to recognize
the great lesson of history that powerful institutions seldom, if ever,
remain for long at the peak of their power; they always enter into a
period of decline. And they decline because of problems in their internal
structure more than through external threats. Less than two decades
after communism was overthrown in eastern Europe, the capitalist system
was itself at risk. No, history did not end.

The
Violation of Free Markets

Capitalisms problems begin with
the fact that the free market is imperiled. A free market requires choices
freely made by the buyers and sellers of products, each seeking their
own advantage. It requires adequate access to information about products,
adequate financing, and relative freedom from government interference
in the decisionmaking process.

Instead of this, we have in the medical field - the
fastest-growing economic sector - state medical boards which decide
who can and cannot practice medicine. In effect, government decides,
in the name of ensuring high quality, that medical doctors must be licensed
and allows the medical practice itself to decide what qualifications
are required for licensure. (Milton Friedman once compared this with
governments deciding that consumers can buy only Cadillacs and
not the less expensive Chevrolets.)

A second departure from the free market is that typically
the seller of the product - the medical doctor - decides whether or
not the buyer will buy it and in what quantity.

Finally, we have a third party - the insurance company
- paying most medical bills. The seller (who prescribed the product)
has a direct incentive to inflate the price and the buyer (who is considered
unqualified to make medical decisions) does not care about costs since
someone else pays. Also, I might add that the decisionmaking process
is contaminated by the drug companies high-pressure sales tactics,
both with respect to doctors who are personally lobbied and to consumers
exposed to heavy television advertising.

Many professions have state boards which restrict
entrance to the field in the name of ensuring high-quality service.
In the medical field, where decisions are sometimes a matter of life
and death, this procedure can perhaps be justified. But would it be
so bad if unqualified hair dressers, say, were allowed to practice?
If the consumer received poor service, she could simply go to another
hair dresser the next time she needed the service. Isnt that how
the free market is supposed to work?

The beneficiary is, of course, the educational establishment.
To pass licensing tests, or even sit for them, one needs to have completed
a certain number of courses from an accredited educational institution.
One needs a degree from an accredited college, and certainly from high
school, to be allowed to apply for most jobs which offer adequate pay
and benefits and reasonable job security. One can have a degree in history
and be employed in banking - it does not matter. A degree, however,
is presumed to be necessary to fill certain kinds of jobs successfully.

Of course, the whole system is based on a fictitious
understanding, fostered by self-interested educators and incumbent jobholders
with degrees. In fact, human intelligence can meet the requirements
of almost any situation without formal training or with minimal training
targeted to the functions that will be handled. The rest of our increasingly
expensive and prolonged educational system constitute interference in
the free market. It illogically restricts the supply of individuals
applying for various jobs and has the effect of increasing the price.

In the global market, however, the political and
business leadership insists that high-priced American workers compete
directly against workers in less developed nations who earn a fraction
of their wage. Our government has agreed that it will not use tariffs
to buffer the price competition. Some working people, it is said, will
benefit from the restructuring of industry while others - the uneducated
and unskilled - will lose their jobs. They need to go back to school.

The real advantage, however, is that managers of
manufacturing firms can quickly boost company earnings, stock prices,
and their own income by outsourcing production to low-wage countries
and continuing to sell in the high-wage U.S. economy. And since businesses
following the so-called Wal-Mart model of business are large
contributors to political candidates and hire armies of lobbyists, government
policy caters to their wants and needs instead of representing the interest
of average citizens. And, of course, professors of economics at our
major universities are unanimous in extolling the virtues of free trade.

Another departure from the free market has to do
with the fact that business is conducted in an environment of advertising
and mass merchandising rather than in a market place where
buyers and sellers can exhibit and inspect merchandise and haggle freely.
The retailers and sellers of goods set prices by policy and are responsive
only to large-scale buying decisions. Also, the information which buyers
have about commercial products comes more often from newspaper and television
advertisements than from immediate inspection of products. With their
proliferation, only the heavily advertised and promoted products achieve
high sales volume. Alternatively, only those goods carried by the large
retailing firms will be available on the market for customers who habitually
shop in such places. It is a system favoring large businesses and disfavoring
small ones.

At a local level, large businesses which employ many
people can negotiate tax concessions from local governments when deciding
where to locate their facilities. Small businesses not only have to
pay full freight but increasingly are at the mercy of a political class
that suspects such business owners or managers of gouging their customers
or permitting criminal activity in their facilities. Onerous regulations
imposed on small businesses, combined with hostile political rhetoric,
create a kind of modern-day pogrom directed against politically unpopular
occupational groups.

Large businesses, on the other hand, can hire the
public-relations specialists and lobbyists to deal with political problems,
in addition to making campaign contributions to the candidates. The
unrepresented general taxpayer is quite often asked to foot the bill
for deals made between government officials and large business interests.
In the housing industry, the affordable-housing lobby encourages government
to pour public money into production and operation of housing units
put in competition with those of private-sector business operators.

In capitalisms decadent phase, we see government
intruding in business operations and intervening for the sake of the
few against the general interest. We see more of what is called corporate
welfare, or public subsidies to business enterprises which can
afford to pay their own way, and we see political constituencies clamoring
to get their hands on someone elses property.

The track record in recent years calls in question
whether U.S. politicians are even capable of being fair and honest.
It calls into question whether U.S. journalism is capable of honest
and fair reporting of political and business activities, so focused
are the reporters on their own narrow vision and the media enterprise
on its desire to attract an audience and make money.

Capitalism
in a more Creative Period

Let us compare what is happening today with events
in a time when the U.S. economy was in its building phase. Yes, government
subsidies helped to build roads, canals, railroads, and other infrastructure
needed for transportation and the creation of larger markets. For much
of our early history, American manufacturing was protected by the tariff
system devised by Alexander Hamilton. We had the advantage of immense
lands, taken from the Indians, which provided cheap timber, cattle,
and wheat. We had abundant supplies of various minerals and, of course,
clean water. We had small governments and low levels of taxation and
regulation.

In this environment, ambitious individuals could
invent new products or start businesses and hope to become rich. There
were no educational requirements standing in their way, fewer lawyers
wanting to sue, or expensive medical obligations attached to their enterprise.
Factory workers were paid low wages and worked long hours in sometimes
dangerous conditions, but eventually labor unions were formed to further
their interests.

One of my favorite examples of enterprise dating
to this earlier period would be the establishment and growth of the
U.S. automobile industry focused especially upon Henry Ford. This was
a relatively uneducated man who grew up on a Michigan farm but who had
a certain mechanical knack. He was employed as an engineer in Edisons
electric-power company while tinkering with automobiles. After building
his own car and gaining a certain reputation from auto racing, Ford
found financial backers for his product. The Ford Motor Company was
established. Then Ford and his associates applied their mechanical ingenuity
to developing mass-production techniques which would lower the per-unit
cost of the product allowing it to be sold more cheaply and then at
a higher volume of sales. In the end, the consumer had a high-quality,
low-cost automobile and Henry Ford became fabulously rich.

This is only part of the story. Besides building
automobiles, Henry Ford had a vision of how to sell them. He realized
that his potential customers needed to have enough money to buy the
product and enough free time to be able to use the product to full advantage
and, therefore, to want to buy it. This went beyond creating a shallow
desire for a product through advertising. In 1914, Ford unilaterally
gave his production workers a huge increase in their hourly wage - to
$5 a day - while restricting work time to eight hours a day. In 1926,
during the changeover from the Model T to Model A, Henry Ford then announced
that Ford employees would no longer work six days a week, but only five.
So, he introduced on his own initiative the five-day, forty-hour workweek,
not for sentimental or humanitarian reasons, he said, but because modern
business needed to do this to remain profitable.

Of course, Henry Ford owned and managed the business
where these decisions were put into effect. Controversial even in their
own day, they could not have been introduced by a manager who answered
to an independent board of directors or to stockholders having a majority
interest. However, Fords two initiatives - higher wages and shorter
working hours - did become more prevalent in U.S. industry thanks to
certain enlightened businessmen but especially to labor-union agitation.
Even certain government officials saw their merit.

But then the Great Depression came. The labor unions,
favoring only wage increases for their members, lost interest in their
traditional goal of reducing work time. Inspired by Lord Keynes, the
federal government preferred financial techniques of regulating the
economy. Hired managers became more focused in short-term profits and
on obtaining more compensation for themselves in the uncertain period
of time when they might be at the helm of the business. Wall Street
made increasing demands on business managers, and government also loomed
more largely. Instead of heeding Henry Fords advice that the
person who makes the bulk of goods is the (same) person who consumes
them, todays business leaders arrange for the producers
to be in one country and the consumers in another. This is a formula
for economic destruction.

Admittedly, one sees sparks of the old creative spirit
in the computer, telecommunication, and consumer-electronics industries.
A business leader such as Steve Jobs would compare favorably with industrialists
of the earlier period. That is because the focus in such industries
remains on how the product would affect the lives of consumers. There
are trade shows where people become excited about the new gadgets that
are available. There is a lively competition among competing brands.
Prices are falling and quality improves. Capitalism flourishes in such
an environment - new uncharted territory.

What is missing, however, is a vision, comparable
to Henry Fords, of how ordinary people can afford these products
and have opportunities to use them more plentifully. If labor unions
are no longer agitating for the general good, then someone else - most
likely government - must do this if the system is to endure. Socialism
has been, as we said, discredited. The brutality and excesses of Stalinist
rule in the Soviet Union and of other similar situations has set such
a horrible precedent that reasonable people would not want to embrace
this kind of government.

I would argue, however, that socialism did not fail
because it presented a vision of a better society in its
own, non-capitalistic terms, but because its program was carried out
by means of a totalitarian government. The national government owned
and managed the businesses and did not merely regulate them. There was
an unchallengeable concentration of power in this government which became
intolerable in the hands of someone like Joseph Stalin. Lord Actions
saying about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely
came home to roost in Stalins socialist (or communist) government.

Whats
Next for our own Society?

When government and business power are similarly
combined as in U.S. society today, corruption can also take place. It
is true that we have Constitutional protections that the Soviet citizens
did not have, but these traditions also can be (and are being) eroded.
What we need to do is to separate the various institutions of power
- government, business, religion, education, the media - and encourage
a certain independence of each from the others.

More likely than this, there may be an economic and
political collapse. The chronic borrowing by government and individual
consumers and our trade deficit will create heavier and heavier financial
obligations while the jobs to support this burden will be lost. A whole
generation of college graduates, told that education was the ticket
to a better life, will be cruelly disappointed. Then and only then,
constructive change might take place. As the level of personal discomfort
increases and people are thoroughly disillusioned by their leaders,
political change might take place, and then economic change.

There may not necessarily be a revolution,
as Ben Stein speculated, or an out-and-out aristocracy.
The lesson of history is that in mature civilizations peoples
attention shifts to other interests and concerns. The old abusive institutions
remain but tend to wither away as fewer people tend to their needs or
care about what they are doing.

Thats what happened after the two world wars.
In World War I, the Europeans monarchies and colonial powers spent the
blood of their people freely. Angry ideologies appeared and produced
another war. But then what happened? The worlds people forgot
about wars and angry ideologies and instead immersed themselves in popular
entertainment. Mickey Mouse remained standing where Hitler, Stalin,
and the Kaiser fell.

The same thing happened after the Thirty Years
War, according to Arnold Toynbee. This war of unprecedented devastation
and severity, waged between Protestants and Catholics, had the effect
of turning Europeans off to organized religion and their competing theologies.
Instead, European intellectuals became interested in exploring nature.
Natural science increasingly attracted peoples attention while
religion was ignored. In a similar way, the Crusades had the effect
of discrediting the Papacy and instead promoting business organization,
banking, trade, art, and ultimately the Renaissance.

Now we have the war on terror, the Iraq war, a possible
war with Iran, nuclear proliferation, and assorted horrors brought by
the Bush administration. Somehow or another, these problems need to
be resolved. Someone will do it but not necessarily under our watchful
eyes. A general sense of disgust has set in. Once Bush is gone, the
rhetoric will subside. Hopefully, an honest, rational administrator
will be elected to the Presidency who will assume the thankless task
of repairing the damage.

Either the Israelis and Palestinians will reach some
accommodation with each other or they will not. Maybe Iraq will fracture
into several nations, or maybe not. Maybe the jihadists will continue
blowing up people. Maybe the U.S. will attack someone else in the name
of bringing them their freedom. Who knows? Its a continuing horror
story that I, for one, wish to escape. It is my hope that history will
move in another direction.

An
Economic Vision

There remains the question
of how Americans will cope with the heavy burden of debt left by this
and preceding administrations? What will Americans do for a living now
that the nations manufacturing base has been largely destroyed?
Currency inflation remains a possible solution for debt. It would represent
a departure from earlier traditions; but these are uncharted times.
It does seem that economic globalization is an irreversible trend. The
best response to its devastating impact on the U.S. economy would be
to develop a corresponding political globalization, able to rein in
and regulate the multi-national businesses.

All nations are threatened by unemployment,
scarce resources, and environmental waste. National governments, together
with the United Nations, need to cooperate to address their common problems.
Governments have taxation as a tool to encourage or discourage certain
practices. Tariffs are a form of taxation. Therefore, governments should
have and use tariffs to regulate international business instead of agreeing
not to use them. Tariffs targeted to the individual business rather
than to classes of commodities or to nations of origin would give the
international political community a means of ensuring that producing
goods for export brings improved wages and hours and better working
conditions to the workers employed in their production with minimal
damage to the environment.

A possible response to chronic unemployment
is a general shortening of work time. If work time is reduced in all
countries, this beneficial change can be accomplished without harming
any nation competitively. The appropriate level of work hours in a nation
depends on its level of industrial development. Industrially more advanced
nations can afford shorter hours than those with more primitive economies.
The important thing, however, is that the trend of hours be downward
so long as unemployment and underemployment remain, caused by investment
in productive equipment. National governments, being sovereign, can
choose not to reduce their level of work hours; but, if they do not,
other nations should be permitted to burden their exported products
with tariffs that would impose an offsetting cost.

Yes, to a degree this represents a globally
planned economy. It is not socialism, however, because business and
government remain separate power centers. If the U.S. economy collapses,
however, one would assume that long-standing pejorative labels might
not have the same impact as before. People would be demanding plausible
solutions offering real results. Business would not be permitted to
continue its current destructive practice of producing in one country
and selling in another; sustainable economies require some balance in
buying and selling products. Government would then be a watchdog guarding
peoples interests.

If Capitalism falls or comes to an end,
it may not mean the end of free enterprise or capitalistic businesses.
It may not come in a violent revolution organized by socialists. Instead,
capitalism may wither away as people lose interest in its program. Social
advancement may take place by means other than achieving financial success
in a career. Tomorrows population may realize that the personal
commitment demanded for educational and career success amounts to accepting
slavery - a kind of gilded slavery in which the allegedly successful
one is not free. This arrangement may no longer be seen as enviable
or cool but merely stupid. Who would want to waste ones
life as a smiling slave? A community based entirely upon individual
competition cannot stand. We must tell the beaters of those drums to
be still.

Humanity will ever wrestle with the
problem of scarce resources and their distribution in society. With
more personal free time, however, other concerns can come to the fore.
People have issues with their personal identity. They are naturally
curious about the world. Some would want to put special effort into
family life; others, into developing their own artistry or skill in
a particular area. The economic obligation can be a kind of tax paid
to society, real but not all-consuming. We can respect persons who assume
that burden well, but not idolize them.

All those recent innovations in consumer
electronics, telecommunications, and computer communication make it
possible to have a rich life of images and sounds, and to travel the
world, at minimal cost. Even the poorest person can have these things.
It will be possible to integrate society as never before culturally
and socially. People will naturally gravitate into this happier life
if given an opportunity. Lets make the world safe for the next
generation from the ambitious politicians and greedy business leaders
who would deny them that opportunity.

The Americans want so much
to be the winners. This winners complex is the main reason why
everything in the world is so confused.

- Former Soviet Union leader, Mikhail Gorbachev,
July 27, 2007, who said that the fall of the Soviet Union had ushered
in an era of U.S. imperialism.